Koussan v. Holder, 556 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2009) (INA 237(a)(3)(A)(ii) (violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546, fraud & misuse of entry documents, is not a "comparable" to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(1), misrepresentation to obtain entry document, for purposes of making an application for relief under former INA 212(c) in deportation proceedings), following Matter of Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I & N Dec. 567 (BIA 1996).

Wenqin Sun v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. Feb.

Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) ("The BIA's approach to determining whether a crime is particularly serious has evolved since Matter of Frentescu. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 342. As Matter of N-A-M-, explains, once an alien is found to have committed a particularly serious crime, we no longer engage in a separate determination to address whether the alien is a danger to the community. Id. Thus, [o]nce the INS makes a finding that an offense constitutes a particularly serious crime, a separate determination of danger to the community is not required.

Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 415560 (3d Cir. Feb. 20, 2009) (finding it a substantial question "whether leaving the country for a four-day personal trip constitutes "depart[ing] voluntarily, under an order of removal," as required by the statute. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) (emphasis added).").

Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 415560 (3d Cir. Feb. 20, 2009) (regulation authorizing immigration officers, rather than immigration judges, to reinstate prior removal orders was a reasonable construction of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5); "While this language prohibits relitigation of the merits of the original order of removal, it does not prohibit an examination of whether the original order was invalidated, or preclude judicial review of whether ICE met its obligations in making the reinstatement determination."), following Morales-Izquierdo v.

Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 415560 (3d Cir. Feb. 20, 2009) (holding regulation and statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), governing reinstatement of removal orders do not violate due process); accord, Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495-98 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) ("Given the narrow and mechanical determinations immigration officers must make and the procedural safeguards provided by [the regulations], the risk of erroneous deprivation is extremely low....

Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 415560 (3d Cir. Feb. 20, 2009) (holding full judicial review is available to a non citizen adjudged removable following reinstatement of removal procedures, so they do not violate due process on this basis); see United States v. Charleswell, 456 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2006); Ponta-Garc[i]a v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 341, 342 (1st Cir. 2004) ("An order reinstating an earlier order of deportation is subject to review...."); 8 U.S.C. 1252 (providing for judicial review of final orders of removal); Duran-Hernandez v.

Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___,2009 WL 456386 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2009) ("This newfound claim is based on a factual assertion that was not presented to the agency. Mejia-Rodriguez has thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Silva v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 26, 28-29 (1st Cir.2006). And had any discretionary decision been made on the facts of his case, this would not be subject to judicial review, given the restraints of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2). See Conteh, 461 F.3d at 63-64.").

Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 456411 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2009 (
(affirming BIA denial of request to allow INA 212(c) waiver nunc pro tunc; distinguishing Matter of L, 1 I. & N. Dec. 1 (A.G. 1940) on the basis that: (1) crime in this case was much more serious, and BIA was not unreasonable to deny "equitable relief" of nunc pro tunc grant of 212(c); and (2) by leaving the country in 2004 the appellant took "an action that he knew or should have known would render him excludable or deportable without the statutory right to apply for discretionary relief.").

Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 456411 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2009 (INA 212(c) nor impermissibly retroactive under St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347, where defendant chose to go to trial), following Dias v. INS, 311 F.3d 456 (1st Cir.2002).